First ever presidential endorsement by Scientific American

T. A. Gardner said:
It is the dimwitted elitist scientific quacks in academia and elsewhere driving this. Trump is no more or less qualified in a scientific sense than Biden or Harris. The one thing that differentiates them is that Trump clearly doesn't automatically accept what science advisors tell him, unlike Biden - Harris say they will do. I think that skepticism is a good thing and that scientific opinions should be listened to but not automatically accepted.
Click to expand...

They should listen to their scientific advisors on matters of science. Only an arrogant buffoon with an axe to grind would argue with a scientist about science.

I mean, if ten doctors said you have cancer, would you ignore them because you don't want cancer? Of course not.
 
zymurgy said:
that is semantic shit

2007, 2012, 2016, and 2020 they verbally chastised one party

they are a liberal rag. they do this every 4 years - and even try to play it up as something that is so unusual for them.

you either are stupid and fall for or like to play around with the same bullshit because winning and power trumps honesty for you
Click to expand...


Liberal-bias universities that hand out degrees and credentials to evolutionists.

True scientists (creationists) get their science degrees from non-accredited religious institutions rather than accredited schools and universities.

Just how useless are liberal-bias universities? Consider the competition: for fifty bucks and an SASE, and you're a Ph.D., ready and qualified to refute evolution! Meanwhile stupid scientists spend far more time and money on a far inferior education!
 
guno said:
Liberal-bias universities that hand out degrees and credentials to evolutionists.

True scientists (creationists) get their science degrees from non-accredited religious institutions rather than accredited schools and universities.

Just how useless are liberal-bias universities? Consider the competition: for fifty bucks and an SASE, and you're a Ph.D., ready and qualified to refute evolution! Meanwhile stupid scientists spend far more time and money on a far inferior education!
Click to expand...

Universities have become profoundly illiberal, the opposite of liberal.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Sorry, but that it is extremely sad to me that Scientific American would become political. You and any intelligent person should know why.

While I'm on the topic of negativity, in the interest of truth and honesty, please don't ban assholes. Have the courage and belief in the honesty of good people to know they can spot the fucking morons without your censorship.

angel09.gif
God Bless!
Click to expand...

Scientific American is a popular science magazine whose editors and staff are science journalists. They are not research scientists, though they do allow research scientists to contribute periodically.

The editors and staff of Scientific American have a professional obligation to stand up for science, to advocate for science. Until now, they never took that obligation into a presidential endorsement. The staff and editors of the magazine obviously feel this year is unique
 
domer76 said:
No endorsement til now, illiterate fuck.
Click to expand...

every 4 years they feign indignation. they make grandiose claims about how serious it is, they warn that they hate doing this, but they have to say something

shit stains fall for the drama

hi shit stain
 
Cypress said:
Scientific American is a popular science magazine whose editors and staff are science journalists. They are not research scientists, though they do allow research scientists to contribute periodically.

The editors and staff of Scientific American have a professional obligation to stand up for science, to advocate for science. Until now, they never took that obligation into a presidential endorsement. The staff and editors of the magazine obviously feel this year is unique
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with Scientific American. It's been around a lot longer than I have. That doesn't absolve it from crossing the line from scientific fact to political endorsement.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I'm familiar with Scientific American. It's been around a lot longer than I have. That doesn't absolve it from crossing the line from scientific fact to political endorsement.
Click to expand...

I do not think scholarly academic research journals should endorse political candidates.

Scientific American's editor and staff are journalists of a popular circulation magazine. Lot's of popular circulation magazines endorse presidential candidates: The Economist, Wired, Vogue, Christianity Today, New Yorker, Variety.

In my opinion Donald Trump is a threat to American science dominance, from climate change to infectious diseases and pandemic response. I can understand why a magazine dedicated to advocating for science might take a stand this time
 
Cypress said:
I do not think scholarly academic research journals should endorse political candidates.

Scientific American's editor and staff are journalists of a popular circulation magazine. Lot's of popular circulation magazines endorse presidential candidates: The Economist, Wired, Vogue, Christianity Today, New Yorker, Variety.

In my opinion Donald Trump is a threat to American science dominance, from climate change to infectious diseases and pandemic response. I can understand why a magazine dedicated to advocating for science might take a stand this time
Click to expand...

Agreed.

"Because everyone else does it" is not a valid excuse.

Yes, he is. He's a fucking moron. That's not an excuse to do exactly what he accuses science of doing.
 
zymurgy said:
every 4 years they feign indignation. they make grandiose claims about how serious it is, they warn that they hate doing this, but they have to say something

shit stains fall for the drama

hi shit stain
Click to expand...

:lolup:

Stop digging, idiot. You’ll see China soon. And you know what they have! No wait, they controlled their COVID problem.
 
Sailor said:
Sooo, you are saying Democrats champion BLM because they know their supporters are not to bright?
Click to expand...

I’m saying that Trump knows the great majority of his supporters will condemn BLM out of hand, with no argument required.

Here is the 10-point plan set out by BLM in 2015 to help address abuses by US police forces. Which of these points are wrong?

1. End “broken windows” policing, which aggressively polices minor crimes in an attempt to stop larger ones.
Remember Eric Garner who was choked to death in 2014 after being accused of selling loose cigarettes?

2. Use community oversight for misconduct rather than having the police department decide what consequences officers should face.
BLM asks for an independent body to review all cases of misconduct.

3. Standardize the procedure for reporting police use of deadly force.
BLM wants to standardize the reporting procedure and make the whole process more transparent.

4. Independently investigate and prosecute police misconduct.
Similar to #2. If a cop shoots someone, someone other than the cops should consider if the shooting was lawful.

5. Have the ethnic makeup of police departments reflect the communities they serve.
Self explanatory but probably utopian.

6. Require officers to wear body cameras.
Already implemented in many forces. The problem starts when it comes to when and why an officer can turn the camera off.

7. Provide more training for police officers.

8. End for-profit policing practices.
‘Civil Forfeiture’ - the police can legally take any property they claim is linked to a crime and use the property as they see fit, even if no one is convicted of the crime.

9. End the police use of military equipment.
Big guns + body armor = scared citizens.

10. Implement police union contracts that hold officers accountable for misconduct.
The police need unions to protect their rights, but the unions should play their part in weeding out bad apples. As things stand, they don’t.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34023751


Consider the Clam.
 
The point is that science is a means of establishing truth by experiment and peer-revue of experiment leading to checkable theory, whereas Trumpf must, inevitably, avoid truth like the plague, because, looked at honestly, he hasn't a leg to stand on. It is quite remarkable how, as the Election approaches, his bully-boys are telling incredible quantities of insane lies. Pity if they manage to destroy The USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top